forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Tedios work and revision number
Date Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:20:22 GMT
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In order to save network traffic and history, I move our jars on the 
> lib/core instead of removing and adding a new version.

It would be better to do the 'svn remove; svn add'.
Why do we need history on these?

> As you know there is this historical convention pre-SVN of having a date 
> in the name of the library if this library comes from a non-released copy.
> 
> Because of that, every time I have to upgrade cocoon to a newest 
> revision number I have to do these steps that are a bit tedious:
> 
> 7a. For each cocoon-{name}-{cocoon.version}-{cocoon.revision}.jar:
> 
> svn mv cocoon-{name}-{cocoon.version}-{cocoon.OLDrevision}.jar
> cocoon-{name}-{cocoon.version}-{cocoon.NEWrevision}.jar
> 
> svn ci -m "prework for upgrade to {cocoon.NEWrevision}"

Why not just remove and add?

> I would like to simplify this for cocoon and other libraries (jtidy and jcs)
> 
> can anyone remember why has to be like that?

So that we know the exact version of Cocoon that
it came from. This enables people who use our
software to track any bugs in the supporting libaries.

Note that there is the validation block that is
not the same revision number as the other cocoon jars.

There could be a shell script to do that update.

> would it be enough to have it on the svn history?

Only if committers remember to add the revision number
to the commit message, so probably not. Also the naming
convention means that users don't need to wade through
our SVN logs to find out which version.

-David

Mime
View raw message